Pathway Summary
Consort map
Demographic information
Characteristic | N | Overall, N = 591 | control, N = 291 | treatment, N = 301 | p-value2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
age | 59 | 50.48 ± 12.64 (25 - 74) | 49.40 ± 13.03 (25 - 74) | 51.53 ± 12.37 (31 - 72) | 0.521 |
gender | 59 | 0.713 | |||
f | 40 (68%) | 19 (66%) | 21 (70%) | ||
m | 19 (32%) | 10 (34%) | 9 (30%) | ||
occupation | 59 | 0.932 | |||
day_training | 1 (1.7%) | 1 (3.4%) | 0 (0%) | ||
full_time | 6 (10%) | 4 (14%) | 2 (6.7%) | ||
homemaker | 4 (6.8%) | 2 (6.9%) | 2 (6.7%) | ||
other | 2 (3.4%) | 0 (0%) | 2 (6.7%) | ||
part_time | 10 (17%) | 5 (17%) | 5 (17%) | ||
retired | 14 (24%) | 6 (21%) | 8 (27%) | ||
self_employ | 2 (3.4%) | 1 (3.4%) | 1 (3.3%) | ||
student | 1 (1.7%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (3.3%) | ||
t_and_e | 2 (3.4%) | 1 (3.4%) | 1 (3.3%) | ||
unemploy | 17 (29%) | 9 (31%) | 8 (27%) | ||
marital | 59 | >0.999 | |||
cohabitation | 1 (1.7%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (3.3%) | ||
divore | 5 (8.5%) | 3 (10%) | 2 (6.7%) | ||
married | 13 (22%) | 6 (21%) | 7 (23%) | ||
none | 34 (58%) | 17 (59%) | 17 (57%) | ||
seperation | 3 (5.1%) | 2 (6.9%) | 1 (3.3%) | ||
widow | 3 (5.1%) | 1 (3.4%) | 2 (6.7%) | ||
edu | 59 | 0.941 | |||
bachelor | 19 (32%) | 9 (31%) | 10 (33%) | ||
diploma | 9 (15%) | 6 (21%) | 3 (10%) | ||
hd_ad | 2 (3.4%) | 1 (3.4%) | 1 (3.3%) | ||
postgraduate | 6 (10%) | 3 (10%) | 3 (10%) | ||
primary | 4 (6.8%) | 1 (3.4%) | 3 (10%) | ||
secondary_1_3 | 4 (6.8%) | 2 (6.9%) | 2 (6.7%) | ||
secondary_4_5 | 14 (24%) | 7 (24%) | 7 (23%) | ||
secondary_6_7 | 1 (1.7%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (3.3%) | ||
fam_income | 59 | 0.843 | |||
10001_12000 | 3 (5.1%) | 1 (3.4%) | 2 (6.7%) | ||
12001_14000 | 4 (6.8%) | 2 (6.9%) | 2 (6.7%) | ||
14001_16000 | 5 (8.5%) | 2 (6.9%) | 3 (10%) | ||
16001_18000 | 2 (3.4%) | 1 (3.4%) | 1 (3.3%) | ||
18001_20000 | 3 (5.1%) | 3 (10%) | 0 (0%) | ||
20001_above | 9 (15%) | 6 (21%) | 3 (10%) | ||
2001_4000 | 6 (10%) | 3 (10%) | 3 (10%) | ||
4001_6000 | 9 (15%) | 4 (14%) | 5 (17%) | ||
6001_8000 | 6 (10%) | 3 (10%) | 3 (10%) | ||
8001_10000 | 4 (6.8%) | 1 (3.4%) | 3 (10%) | ||
below_2000 | 8 (14%) | 3 (10%) | 5 (17%) | ||
medication | 59 | 49 (83%) | 25 (86%) | 24 (80%) | 0.731 |
onset_duration | 59 | 14.96 ± 12.10 (0 - 56) | 17.01 ± 13.49 (1 - 56) | 12.98 ± 10.43 (0 - 35) | 0.204 |
onset_age | 59 | 35.52 ± 13.62 (15 - 64) | 32.39 ± 11.95 (16 - 55) | 38.55 ± 14.61 (15 - 64) | 0.082 |
1Mean ± SD (Range); n (%) | |||||
2Two Sample t-test; Pearson's Chi-squared test; Fisher's exact test | |||||
Measurement
Table
Characteristic | N | Overall, N = 591 | control, N = 291 | treatment, N = 301 | p-value2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | 59 | 3.25 ± 1.21 (1 - 5) | 3.21 ± 1.26 (1 - 5) | 3.30 ± 1.18 (1 - 5) | 0.771 |
recovery_stage_b | 59 | 17.98 ± 2.62 (9 - 23) | 17.93 ± 2.84 (9 - 23) | 18.03 ± 2.44 (14 - 23) | 0.882 |
ras_confidence | 59 | 30.25 ± 4.70 (19 - 40) | 29.76 ± 4.34 (19 - 40) | 30.73 ± 5.04 (20 - 39) | 0.430 |
ras_willingness | 59 | 12.14 ± 1.98 (7 - 15) | 12.07 ± 1.77 (9 - 15) | 12.20 ± 2.19 (7 - 15) | 0.802 |
ras_goal | 59 | 17.44 ± 2.84 (12 - 24) | 17.48 ± 2.73 (12 - 23) | 17.40 ± 2.99 (12 - 24) | 0.912 |
ras_reliance | 59 | 13.31 ± 2.88 (8 - 20) | 13.07 ± 2.72 (8 - 18) | 13.53 ± 3.06 (8 - 20) | 0.541 |
ras_domination | 59 | 9.98 ± 2.23 (3 - 15) | 10.48 ± 1.88 (7 - 15) | 9.50 ± 2.46 (3 - 14) | 0.091 |
symptom | 59 | 29.93 ± 9.77 (14 - 56) | 29.66 ± 9.27 (14 - 48) | 30.20 ± 10.39 (15 - 56) | 0.833 |
slof_work | 59 | 22.36 ± 4.89 (10 - 30) | 22.41 ± 4.52 (15 - 30) | 22.30 ± 5.30 (10 - 30) | 0.930 |
slof_relationship | 59 | 25.68 ± 5.99 (11 - 35) | 25.34 ± 6.18 (13 - 35) | 26.00 ± 5.90 (11 - 35) | 0.678 |
satisfaction | 59 | 20.83 ± 6.47 (5 - 30) | 19.38 ± 6.06 (5 - 29) | 22.23 ± 6.65 (5 - 30) | 0.091 |
mhc_emotional | 59 | 11.25 ± 3.71 (4 - 18) | 10.97 ± 3.09 (6 - 17) | 11.53 ± 4.26 (4 - 18) | 0.561 |
mhc_social | 59 | 14.58 ± 5.07 (6 - 26) | 14.93 ± 5.09 (7 - 26) | 14.23 ± 5.11 (6 - 23) | 0.601 |
mhc_psychological | 59 | 21.90 ± 5.95 (6 - 36) | 21.48 ± 5.70 (10 - 33) | 22.30 ± 6.25 (6 - 36) | 0.602 |
resilisnce | 59 | 16.53 ± 4.53 (6 - 25) | 16.28 ± 4.46 (6 - 24) | 16.77 ± 4.65 (7 - 25) | 0.681 |
social_provision | 59 | 13.69 ± 3.02 (5 - 20) | 13.38 ± 2.72 (8 - 20) | 14.00 ± 3.31 (5 - 19) | 0.435 |
els_value_living | 59 | 17.19 ± 2.96 (5 - 23) | 16.72 ± 2.52 (12 - 22) | 17.63 ± 3.31 (5 - 23) | 0.241 |
els_life_fulfill | 59 | 12.85 ± 3.25 (4 - 18) | 11.83 ± 3.12 (5 - 17) | 13.83 ± 3.11 (4 - 18) | 0.016 |
els | 59 | 30.03 ± 5.49 (9 - 40) | 28.55 ± 4.53 (20 - 36) | 31.47 ± 6.02 (9 - 40) | 0.040 |
social_connect | 59 | 26.75 ± 9.39 (8 - 48) | 26.93 ± 8.11 (8 - 45) | 26.57 ± 10.61 (8 - 48) | 0.883 |
shs_agency | 59 | 14.37 ± 4.63 (3 - 21) | 13.66 ± 4.25 (3 - 20) | 15.07 ± 4.93 (3 - 21) | 0.245 |
shs_pathway | 59 | 16.58 ± 3.76 (4 - 22) | 15.93 ± 3.50 (8 - 22) | 17.20 ± 3.94 (4 - 22) | 0.197 |
shs | 59 | 30.95 ± 7.85 (7 - 42) | 29.59 ± 7.37 (14 - 41) | 32.27 ± 8.19 (7 - 42) | 0.192 |
esteem | 59 | 12.51 ± 1.24 (10 - 15) | 12.55 ± 1.15 (10 - 14) | 12.47 ± 1.33 (10 - 15) | 0.794 |
mlq_search | 59 | 14.83 ± 3.44 (3 - 21) | 14.79 ± 3.27 (6 - 21) | 14.87 ± 3.66 (3 - 20) | 0.935 |
mlq_presence | 59 | 13.63 ± 4.03 (3 - 21) | 13.86 ± 3.13 (6 - 20) | 13.40 ± 4.79 (3 - 21) | 0.664 |
mlq | 59 | 28.46 ± 6.76 (6 - 41) | 28.66 ± 6.03 (12 - 40) | 28.27 ± 7.50 (6 - 41) | 0.828 |
empower | 59 | 19.61 ± 4.25 (6 - 28) | 19.24 ± 3.88 (11 - 24) | 19.97 ± 4.62 (6 - 28) | 0.517 |
ismi_resistance | 59 | 14.63 ± 2.78 (5 - 20) | 14.48 ± 2.34 (11 - 19) | 14.77 ± 3.18 (5 - 20) | 0.698 |
ismi_discrimation | 59 | 11.41 ± 3.38 (5 - 19) | 12.41 ± 2.86 (5 - 18) | 10.43 ± 3.61 (5 - 19) | 0.023 |
sss_affective | 59 | 9.98 ± 4.07 (3 - 18) | 10.66 ± 3.56 (3 - 18) | 9.33 ± 4.47 (3 - 18) | 0.215 |
sss_behavior | 59 | 9.68 ± 4.13 (3 - 18) | 10.52 ± 4.07 (3 - 18) | 8.87 ± 4.10 (3 - 18) | 0.126 |
sss_cognitive | 59 | 8.32 ± 4.17 (3 - 18) | 8.69 ± 4.38 (3 - 18) | 7.97 ± 4.00 (3 - 18) | 0.511 |
sss | 59 | 27.98 ± 11.51 (9 - 54) | 29.86 ± 10.74 (9 - 54) | 26.17 ± 12.11 (9 - 54) | 0.221 |
1Mean ± SD (Range) | |||||
2Two Sample t-test | |||||
Plot
Data analysis
Table
Group | Characteristic | Beta | SE1 | 95% CI1 | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | (Intercept) | 3.21 | 0.225 | 2.77, 3.65 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.093 | 0.315 | -0.525, 0.711 | 0.768 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.291 | 0.341 | -0.377, 0.959 | 0.397 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.020 | 0.465 | -0.933, 0.892 | 0.965 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.014 | ||||
recovery_stage_b | (Intercept) | 17.9 | 0.507 | 16.9, 18.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.102 | 0.712 | -1.29, 1.50 | 0.886 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.154 | 0.694 | -1.51, 1.21 | 0.826 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.610 | 0.945 | -1.24, 2.46 | 0.522 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.007 | ||||
ras_confidence | (Intercept) | 29.8 | 0.935 | 27.9, 31.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.975 | 1.311 | -1.59, 3.54 | 0.460 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.501 | 0.988 | -1.44, 2.44 | 0.615 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.059 | 1.342 | -2.57, 2.69 | 0.965 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.013 | ||||
ras_willingness | (Intercept) | 12.1 | 0.376 | 11.3, 12.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.131 | 0.527 | -0.902, 1.16 | 0.804 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.881 | 0.361 | -1.59, -0.173 | 0.020 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.706 | 0.490 | -0.255, 1.67 | 0.159 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.029 | ||||
ras_goal | (Intercept) | 17.5 | 0.576 | 16.4, 18.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.083 | 0.808 | -1.67, 1.50 | 0.919 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.851 | 0.623 | -2.07, 0.371 | 0.180 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.48 | 0.847 | -0.184, 3.14 | 0.089 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.018 | ||||
ras_reliance | (Intercept) | 13.1 | 0.527 | 12.0, 14.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.464 | 0.739 | -0.984, 1.91 | 0.532 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.233 | 0.467 | -0.682, 1.15 | 0.621 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.728 | 0.634 | -0.514, 1.97 | 0.258 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.031 | ||||
ras_domination | (Intercept) | 10.5 | 0.412 | 9.68, 11.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.983 | 0.578 | -2.11, 0.149 | 0.093 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.471 | 0.544 | -1.54, 0.595 | 0.391 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.28 | 0.740 | -0.172, 2.73 | 0.092 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.034 | ||||
symptom | (Intercept) | 29.7 | 1.834 | 26.1, 33.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.545 | 2.572 | -4.50, 5.59 | 0.833 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.640 | 1.270 | -3.13, 1.85 | 0.618 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.180 | 1.721 | -3.55, 3.19 | 0.917 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.002 | ||||
slof_work | (Intercept) | 22.4 | 0.917 | 20.6, 24.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.114 | 1.286 | -2.64, 2.41 | 0.930 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.127 | 0.708 | -1.52, 1.26 | 0.859 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.19 | 0.961 | -3.08, 0.690 | 0.223 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.012 | ||||
slof_relationship | (Intercept) | 25.3 | 1.110 | 23.2, 27.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.655 | 1.557 | -2.40, 3.71 | 0.675 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -1.20 | 1.011 | -3.18, 0.785 | 0.245 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.536 | 1.372 | -2.15, 3.23 | 0.699 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.010 | ||||
satisfaction | (Intercept) | 19.4 | 1.250 | 16.9, 21.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 2.85 | 1.753 | -0.582, 6.29 | 0.108 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.909 | 1.380 | -1.80, 3.61 | 0.514 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.79 | 1.875 | -5.47, 1.88 | 0.345 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.030 | ||||
mhc_emotional | (Intercept) | 11.0 | 0.688 | 9.62, 12.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.568 | 0.965 | -1.32, 2.46 | 0.558 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.722 | 0.638 | -0.529, 1.97 | 0.266 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.29 | 0.866 | -2.99, 0.403 | 0.144 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.007 | ||||
mhc_social | (Intercept) | 14.9 | 0.988 | 13.0, 16.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.698 | 1.386 | -3.41, 2.02 | 0.616 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.22 | 1.073 | -0.881, 3.32 | 0.262 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.38 | 1.458 | -4.23, 1.48 | 0.351 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.018 | ||||
mhc_psychological | (Intercept) | 21.5 | 1.171 | 19.2, 23.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.817 | 1.642 | -2.40, 4.04 | 0.620 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.01 | 1.191 | -1.33, 3.34 | 0.403 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -2.16 | 1.618 | -5.33, 1.01 | 0.190 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.007 | ||||
resilisnce | (Intercept) | 16.3 | 0.809 | 14.7, 17.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.491 | 1.135 | -1.73, 2.71 | 0.667 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.544 | 0.756 | -0.938, 2.03 | 0.476 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.165 | 1.027 | -1.85, 2.18 | 0.873 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.009 | ||||
social_provision | (Intercept) | 13.4 | 0.550 | 12.3, 14.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.621 | 0.771 | -0.891, 2.13 | 0.424 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.429 | 0.579 | -1.56, 0.705 | 0.463 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.266 | 0.786 | -1.27, 1.81 | 0.737 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.017 | ||||
els_value_living | (Intercept) | 16.7 | 0.548 | 15.6, 17.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.909 | 0.769 | -0.598, 2.42 | 0.241 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.619 | 0.551 | -0.462, 1.70 | 0.269 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.465 | 0.749 | -1.93, 1.00 | 0.538 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.021 | ||||
els_life_fulfill | (Intercept) | 11.8 | 0.561 | 10.7, 12.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 2.01 | 0.786 | 0.465, 3.55 | 0.013 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.12 | 0.575 | -0.003, 2.25 | 0.059 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.925 | 0.781 | -2.46, 0.607 | 0.244 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.087 | ||||
els | (Intercept) | 28.6 | 0.985 | 26.6, 30.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 2.91 | 1.382 | 0.207, 5.62 | 0.039 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.67 | 0.931 | -0.153, 3.50 | 0.081 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.32 | 1.264 | -3.79, 1.16 | 0.305 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.062 | ||||
social_connect | (Intercept) | 26.9 | 1.715 | 23.6, 30.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.364 | 2.406 | -5.08, 4.35 | 0.880 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.660 | 1.339 | -1.96, 3.28 | 0.625 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.530 | 1.816 | -4.09, 3.03 | 0.772 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.001 | ||||
shs_agency | (Intercept) | 13.7 | 0.863 | 12.0, 15.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.41 | 1.210 | -0.961, 3.78 | 0.248 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.364 | 0.861 | -1.32, 2.05 | 0.675 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.248 | 1.169 | -2.04, 2.54 | 0.833 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.029 | ||||
shs_pathway | (Intercept) | 15.9 | 0.686 | 14.6, 17.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.27 | 0.962 | -0.616, 3.15 | 0.192 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.599 | 0.601 | -0.579, 1.78 | 0.326 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.782 | 0.816 | -2.38, 0.817 | 0.345 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.021 | ||||
shs | (Intercept) | 29.6 | 1.444 | 26.8, 32.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 2.68 | 2.025 | -1.29, 6.65 | 0.190 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.912 | 1.290 | -1.62, 3.44 | 0.484 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.458 | 1.751 | -3.89, 2.97 | 0.795 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.028 | ||||
esteem | (Intercept) | 12.6 | 0.228 | 12.1, 13.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.085 | 0.320 | -0.712, 0.542 | 0.791 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.626 | 0.383 | -0.124, 1.38 | 0.109 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.363 | 0.524 | -1.39, 0.664 | 0.492 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.039 | ||||
mlq_search | (Intercept) | 14.8 | 0.644 | 13.5, 16.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.074 | 0.903 | -1.70, 1.84 | 0.935 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.032 | 0.804 | -1.54, 1.61 | 0.968 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.164 | 1.094 | -2.31, 1.98 | 0.882 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.000 | ||||
mlq_presence | (Intercept) | 13.9 | 0.740 | 12.4, 15.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.462 | 1.038 | -2.50, 1.57 | 0.658 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.069 | 0.886 | -1.81, 1.67 | 0.939 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.192 | 1.205 | -2.17, 2.55 | 0.874 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.003 | ||||
mlq | (Intercept) | 28.7 | 1.275 | 26.2, 31.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.389 | 1.788 | -3.89, 3.12 | 0.829 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.068 | 1.528 | -3.06, 2.93 | 0.965 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.056 | 2.078 | -4.02, 4.13 | 0.979 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.001 | ||||
empower | (Intercept) | 19.2 | 0.758 | 17.8, 20.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.725 | 1.063 | -1.36, 2.81 | 0.497 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.147 | 0.713 | -1.25, 1.54 | 0.838 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.871 | 0.968 | -2.77, 1.03 | 0.374 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.006 | ||||
ismi_resistance | (Intercept) | 14.5 | 0.485 | 13.5, 15.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.284 | 0.681 | -1.05, 1.62 | 0.678 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.542 | 0.669 | -0.769, 1.85 | 0.422 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.639 | 0.911 | -2.43, 1.15 | 0.487 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.005 | ||||
ismi_discrimation | (Intercept) | 12.4 | 0.614 | 11.2, 13.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.98 | 0.861 | -3.67, -0.293 | 0.025 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.975 | 0.597 | -2.14, 0.195 | 0.111 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.52 | 0.810 | -0.070, 3.11 | 0.069 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.057 | ||||
sss_affective | (Intercept) | 10.7 | 0.723 | 9.24, 12.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.32 | 1.014 | -3.31, 0.666 | 0.197 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.023 | 0.603 | -1.16, 1.20 | 0.970 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.842 | 0.818 | -2.44, 0.760 | 0.310 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.048 | ||||
sss_behavior | (Intercept) | 10.5 | 0.730 | 9.09, 11.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.65 | 1.024 | -3.66, 0.356 | 0.112 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.283 | 0.652 | -1.56, 0.994 | 0.666 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.378 | 0.884 | -2.11, 1.35 | 0.671 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.054 | ||||
sss_cognitive | (Intercept) | 8.69 | 0.761 | 7.20, 10.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.723 | 1.067 | -2.81, 1.37 | 0.501 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.857 | 0.611 | -0.341, 2.05 | 0.170 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.65 | 0.829 | -3.27, -0.021 | 0.055 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.034 | ||||
sss | (Intercept) | 29.9 | 2.057 | 25.8, 33.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -3.70 | 2.885 | -9.35, 1.96 | 0.205 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.662 | 1.544 | -2.37, 3.69 | 0.671 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -2.93 | 2.094 | -7.04, 1.17 | 0.171 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.050 | ||||
1SE = Standard Error, CI = Confidence Interval | |||||
Text
recovery_stage_a
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_a with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_a ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.29) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.21 (95% CI [2.77, 3.65], t(86) = 14.27, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.52, 0.71], t(86) = 0.30, p = 0.768; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.59])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.96], t(86) = 0.85, p = 0.393; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.80])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.93, 0.89], t(86) = -0.04, p = 0.965; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.78, 0.74])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
recovery_stage_b
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_b with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_b ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.45) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.33e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.93 (95% CI [16.94, 18.93], t(86) = 35.33, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-1.29, 1.50], t(86) = 0.14, p = 0.886; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.48, 0.55])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-1.51, 1.21], t(86) = -0.22, p = 0.825; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.56, 0.44])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.61, 95% CI [-1.24, 2.46], t(86) = 0.65, p = 0.518; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.91])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_confidence
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_confidence with group and time_point (formula: ras_confidence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.69) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.76 (95% CI [27.93, 31.59], t(86) = 31.84, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.97, 95% CI [-1.59, 3.54], t(86) = 0.74, p = 0.457; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.71])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.50, 95% CI [-1.44, 2.44], t(86) = 0.51, p = 0.612; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.49])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-2.57, 2.69], t(86) = 0.04, p = 0.965; Std. beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.51, 0.54])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_willingness
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_willingness with group and time_point (formula: ras_willingness ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.07 (95% CI [11.33, 12.81], t(86) = 32.11, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.90, 1.16], t(86) = 0.25, p = 0.804; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.58])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -0.88, 95% CI [-1.59, -0.17], t(86) = -2.44, p = 0.015; Std. beta = -0.44, 95% CI [-0.79, -0.09])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.71, 95% CI [-0.26, 1.67], t(86) = 1.44, p = 0.150; Std. beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.83])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_goal
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_goal with group and time_point (formula: ras_goal ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.68) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.48 (95% CI [16.35, 18.61], t(86) = 30.35, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-1.67, 1.50], t(86) = -0.10, p = 0.918; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.53, 0.48])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.85, 95% CI [-2.07, 0.37], t(86) = -1.37, p = 0.172; Std. beta = -0.27, 95% CI [-0.66, 0.12])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.48, 95% CI [-0.18, 3.14], t(86) = 1.74, p = 0.081; Std. beta = 0.47, 95% CI [-0.06, 1.00])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_reliance
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_reliance with group and time_point (formula: ras_reliance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.79) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.07 (95% CI [12.04, 14.10], t(86) = 24.80, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.46, 95% CI [-0.98, 1.91], t(86) = 0.63, p = 0.530; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.65])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.68, 1.15], t(86) = 0.50, p = 0.618; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.39])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.73, 95% CI [-0.51, 1.97], t(86) = 1.15, p = 0.250; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.67])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_domination
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_domination with group and time_point (formula: ras_domination ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.50) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.48 (95% CI [9.68, 11.29], t(86) = 25.45, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.98, 95% CI [-2.11, 0.15], t(86) = -1.70, p = 0.089; Std. beta = -0.44, 95% CI [-0.95, 0.07])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.47, 95% CI [-1.54, 0.60], t(86) = -0.87, p = 0.387; Std. beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-0.69, 0.27])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.28, 95% CI [-0.17, 2.73], t(86) = 1.73, p = 0.084; Std. beta = 0.57, 95% CI [-0.08, 1.23])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
symptom
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict symptom with group and time_point (formula: symptom ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.87) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 1.84e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.66 (95% CI [26.06, 33.25], t(86) = 16.17, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.54, 95% CI [-4.50, 5.59], t(86) = 0.21, p = 0.832; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.55])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.64, 95% CI [-3.13, 1.85], t(86) = -0.50, p = 0.614; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.18])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-3.55, 3.19], t(86) = -0.10, p = 0.917; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.32])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
slof_work
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_work with group and time_point (formula: slof_work ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.84) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 22.41 (95% CI [20.62, 24.21], t(86) = 24.43, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-2.64, 2.41], t(86) = -0.09, p = 0.930; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.53, 0.48])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-1.52, 1.26], t(86) = -0.18, p = 0.858; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.25])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.19, 95% CI [-3.08, 0.69], t(86) = -1.24, p = 0.214; Std. beta = -0.24, 95% CI [-0.62, 0.14])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
slof_relationship
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_relationship with group and time_point (formula: slof_relationship ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 25.34 (95% CI [23.17, 27.52], t(86) = 22.82, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.66, 95% CI [-2.40, 3.71], t(86) = 0.42, p = 0.674; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.64])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.20, 95% CI [-3.18, 0.78], t(86) = -1.18, p = 0.236; Std. beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-0.55, 0.13])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.54, 95% CI [-2.15, 3.23], t(86) = 0.39, p = 0.696; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.55])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
satisfaction
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict satisfaction with group and time_point (formula: satisfaction ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.38 (95% CI [16.93, 21.83], t(86) = 15.50, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.85, 95% CI [-0.58, 6.29], t(86) = 1.63, p = 0.104; Std. beta = 0.42, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.92])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.91, 95% CI [-1.80, 3.61], t(86) = 0.66, p = 0.510; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.53])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.79, 95% CI [-5.47, 1.88], t(86) = -0.96, p = 0.339; Std. beta = -0.26, 95% CI [-0.80, 0.28])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_emotional
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_emotional with group and time_point (formula: mhc_emotional ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.23e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.97 (95% CI [9.62, 12.31], t(86) = 15.93, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.57, 95% CI [-1.32, 2.46], t(86) = 0.59, p = 0.556; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.67])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.72, 95% CI [-0.53, 1.97], t(86) = 1.13, p = 0.258; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.54])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.29, 95% CI [-2.99, 0.40], t(86) = -1.49, p = 0.135; Std. beta = -0.35, 95% CI [-0.82, 0.11])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_social
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_social with group and time_point (formula: mhc_social ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.93 (95% CI [12.99, 16.87], t(86) = 15.11, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.70, 95% CI [-3.41, 2.02], t(86) = -0.50, p = 0.615; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.64, 0.38])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.22, 95% CI [-0.88, 3.32], t(86) = 1.14, p = 0.255; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.63])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.38, 95% CI [-4.23, 1.48], t(86) = -0.94, p = 0.345; Std. beta = -0.26, 95% CI [-0.80, 0.28])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_psychological
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_psychological with group and time_point (formula: mhc_psychological ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.88e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 21.48 (95% CI [19.19, 23.78], t(86) = 18.35, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.82, 95% CI [-2.40, 4.04], t(86) = 0.50, p = 0.619; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.64])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.01, 95% CI [-1.33, 3.34], t(86) = 0.85, p = 0.398; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.53])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.16, 95% CI [-5.33, 1.01], t(86) = -1.34, p = 0.181; Std. beta = -0.34, 95% CI [-0.85, 0.16])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
resilisnce
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict resilisnce with group and time_point (formula: resilisnce ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.22e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.28 (95% CI [14.69, 17.86], t(86) = 20.11, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.49, 95% CI [-1.73, 2.71], t(86) = 0.43, p = 0.665; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.63])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.54, 95% CI [-0.94, 2.03], t(86) = 0.72, p = 0.472; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.47])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-1.85, 2.18], t(86) = 0.16, p = 0.872; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.50])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
social_provision
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_provision with group and time_point (formula: social_provision ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.38 (95% CI [12.30, 14.46], t(86) = 24.32, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.62, 95% CI [-0.89, 2.13], t(86) = 0.80, p = 0.421; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.72])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.43, 95% CI [-1.56, 0.71], t(86) = -0.74, p = 0.459; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.53, 0.24])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-1.27, 1.81], t(86) = 0.34, p = 0.735; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.61])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els_value_living
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_value_living with group and time_point (formula: els_value_living ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.72 (95% CI [15.65, 17.80], t(86) = 30.50, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.91, 95% CI [-0.60, 2.42], t(86) = 1.18, p = 0.237; Std. beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.81])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.62, 95% CI [-0.46, 1.70], t(86) = 1.12, p = 0.262; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.57])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.47, 95% CI [-1.93, 1.00], t(86) = -0.62, p = 0.534; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.64, 0.33])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els_life_fulfill
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_life_fulfill with group and time_point (formula: els_life_fulfill ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.09. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.83 (95% CI [10.73, 12.93], t(86) = 21.10, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 2.01, 95% CI [0.47, 3.55], t(86) = 2.55, p = 0.011; Std. beta = 0.64, 95% CI [0.15, 1.14])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.12, 95% CI [-3.49e-03, 2.25], t(86) = 1.95, p = 0.051; Std. beta = 0.36, 95% CI [-1.12e-03, 0.72])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.93, 95% CI [-2.46, 0.61], t(86) = -1.18, p = 0.236; Std. beta = -0.30, 95% CI [-0.79, 0.19])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els with group and time_point (formula: els ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.06. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.55 (95% CI [26.62, 30.48], t(86) = 28.98, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 2.91, 95% CI [0.21, 5.62], t(86) = 2.11, p = 0.035; Std. beta = 0.53, 95% CI [0.04, 1.02])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.67, 95% CI [-0.15, 3.50], t(86) = 1.80, p = 0.073; Std. beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.64])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.32, 95% CI [-3.79, 1.16], t(86) = -1.04, p = 0.298; Std. beta = -0.24, 95% CI [-0.69, 0.21])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
social_connect
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_connect with group and time_point (formula: social_connect ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.84) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 1.44e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 26.93 (95% CI [23.57, 30.29], t(86) = 15.70, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.36, 95% CI [-5.08, 4.35], t(86) = -0.15, p = 0.880; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.54, 0.47])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.66, 95% CI [-1.96, 3.28], t(86) = 0.49, p = 0.622; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.35])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.53, 95% CI [-4.09, 3.03], t(86) = -0.29, p = 0.770; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.32])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs_agency
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_agency with group and time_point (formula: shs_agency ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.66 (95% CI [11.96, 15.35], t(86) = 15.82, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.41, 95% CI [-0.96, 3.78], t(86) = 1.17, p = 0.244; Std. beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.81])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.36, 95% CI [-1.32, 2.05], t(86) = 0.42, p = 0.673; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.44])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-2.04, 2.54], t(86) = 0.21, p = 0.832; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.54])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs_pathway
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_pathway with group and time_point (formula: shs_pathway ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.80) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.93 (95% CI [14.59, 17.28], t(86) = 23.23, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.27, 95% CI [-0.62, 3.15], t(86) = 1.32, p = 0.187; Std. beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.86])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.60, 95% CI [-0.58, 1.78], t(86) = 1.00, p = 0.319; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.48])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.78, 95% CI [-2.38, 0.82], t(86) = -0.96, p = 0.338; Std. beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-0.65, 0.22])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs with group and time_point (formula: shs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.79) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.59 (95% CI [26.76, 32.42], t(86) = 20.49, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.68, 95% CI [-1.29, 6.65], t(86) = 1.32, p = 0.186; Std. beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.85])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.91, 95% CI [-1.62, 3.44], t(86) = 0.71, p = 0.480; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.44])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.46, 95% CI [-3.89, 2.97], t(86) = -0.26, p = 0.794; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.38])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
esteem
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict esteem with group and time_point (formula: esteem ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is weak (conditional R2 = 0.09) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.55 (95% CI [12.10, 13.00], t(86) = 55.04, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.71, 0.54], t(86) = -0.27, p = 0.790; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.58, 0.44])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.63, 95% CI [-0.12, 1.38], t(86) = 1.64, p = 0.102; Std. beta = 0.51, 95% CI [-0.10, 1.12])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.36, 95% CI [-1.39, 0.66], t(86) = -0.69, p = 0.488; Std. beta = -0.29, 95% CI [-1.13, 0.54])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq_search
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_search with group and time_point (formula: mlq_search ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.55) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 1.91e-04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.79 (95% CI [13.53, 16.06], t(86) = 22.98, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-1.70, 1.84], t(86) = 0.08, p = 0.935; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.54])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-1.54, 1.61], t(86) = 0.04, p = 0.968; Std. beta = 9.55e-03, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.47])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-2.31, 1.98], t(86) = -0.15, p = 0.881; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.68, 0.58])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq_presence
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_presence with group and time_point (formula: mlq_presence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.59) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 2.59e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.86 (95% CI [12.41, 15.31], t(86) = 18.73, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.46, 95% CI [-2.50, 1.57], t(86) = -0.45, p = 0.656; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.63, 0.40])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-1.81, 1.67], t(86) = -0.08, p = 0.938; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.42])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-2.17, 2.55], t(86) = 0.16, p = 0.874; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.55, 0.65])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq with group and time_point (formula: mlq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.59) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.43e-04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.66 (95% CI [26.16, 31.15], t(86) = 22.48, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.39, 95% CI [-3.89, 3.12], t(86) = -0.22, p = 0.828; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.58, 0.46])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-3.06, 2.93], t(86) = -0.04, p = 0.964; Std. beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.43])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-4.02, 4.13], t(86) = 0.03, p = 0.978; Std. beta = 8.29e-03, 95% CI [-0.59, 0.61])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
empower
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict empower with group and time_point (formula: empower ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.46e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.24 (95% CI [17.76, 20.73], t(86) = 25.38, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.73, 95% CI [-1.36, 2.81], t(86) = 0.68, p = 0.495; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.69])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-1.25, 1.54], t(86) = 0.21, p = 0.837; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.38])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.87, 95% CI [-2.77, 1.03], t(86) = -0.90, p = 0.368; Std. beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-0.68, 0.25])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ismi_resistance
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_resistance with group and time_point (formula: ismi_resistance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.43) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.96e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.48 (95% CI [13.53, 15.43], t(86) = 29.84, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-1.05, 1.62], t(86) = 0.42, p = 0.677; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.63])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.54, 95% CI [-0.77, 1.85], t(86) = 0.81, p = 0.418; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.72])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.64, 95% CI [-2.43, 1.15], t(86) = -0.70, p = 0.483; Std. beta = -0.25, 95% CI [-0.94, 0.44])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ismi_discrimation
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_discrimation with group and time_point (formula: ismi_discrimation ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.06. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.41 (95% CI [11.21, 13.62], t(86) = 20.21, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.98, 95% CI [-3.67, -0.29], t(86) = -2.30, p = 0.021; Std. beta = -0.59, 95% CI [-1.10, -0.09])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.97, 95% CI [-2.14, 0.20], t(86) = -1.63, p = 0.103; Std. beta = -0.29, 95% CI [-0.64, 0.06])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.52, 95% CI [-0.07, 3.11], t(86) = 1.87, p = 0.061; Std. beta = 0.45, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.93])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_affective
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_affective with group and time_point (formula: sss_affective ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.82) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.66 (95% CI [9.24, 12.07], t(86) = 14.73, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.32, 95% CI [-3.31, 0.67], t(86) = -1.30, p = 0.193; Std. beta = -0.33, 95% CI [-0.83, 0.17])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-1.16, 1.20], t(86) = 0.04, p = 0.970; Std. beta = 5.69e-03, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.30])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.84, 95% CI [-2.44, 0.76], t(86) = -1.03, p = 0.303; Std. beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-0.62, 0.19])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_behavior
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_behavior with group and time_point (formula: sss_behavior ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.79) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.52 (95% CI [9.09, 11.95], t(86) = 14.40, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.65, 95% CI [-3.66, 0.36], t(86) = -1.61, p = 0.107; Std. beta = -0.41, 95% CI [-0.91, 0.09])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.28, 95% CI [-1.56, 0.99], t(86) = -0.44, p = 0.664; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.25])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.38, 95% CI [-2.11, 1.35], t(86) = -0.43, p = 0.669; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.53, 0.34])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_cognitive
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_cognitive with group and time_point (formula: sss_cognitive ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.83) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 8.69 (95% CI [7.20, 10.18], t(86) = 11.42, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.72, 95% CI [-2.81, 1.37], t(86) = -0.68, p = 0.498; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.70, 0.34])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.86, 95% CI [-0.34, 2.05], t(86) = 1.40, p = 0.161; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.51])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.65, 95% CI [-3.27, -0.02], t(86) = -1.98, p = 0.047; Std. beta = -0.41, 95% CI [-0.81, -5.12e-03])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss with group and time_point (formula: sss ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.86) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.86 (95% CI [25.83, 33.89], t(86) = 14.52, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -3.70, 95% CI [-9.35, 1.96], t(86) = -1.28, p = 0.200; Std. beta = -0.33, 95% CI [-0.83, 0.17])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.66, 95% CI [-2.37, 3.69], t(86) = 0.43, p = 0.668; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.33])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.93, 95% CI [-7.04, 1.17], t(86) = -1.40, p = 0.162; Std. beta = -0.26, 95% CI [-0.63, 0.10])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
Likelihood ratio tests
outcome | model | npar | AIC | BIC | logLik | deviance | Chisq | Df | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | null | 3 | 297.042 | 304.607 | -145.521 | 291.042 | |||
recovery_stage_a | random | 6 | 301.402 | 316.532 | -144.701 | 289.402 | 1.640 | 3 | 0.650 |
recovery_stage_b | null | 3 | 441.656 | 449.221 | -217.828 | 435.656 | |||
recovery_stage_b | random | 6 | 446.847 | 461.978 | -217.424 | 434.847 | 0.809 | 3 | 0.847 |
ras_confidence | null | 3 | 540.590 | 548.155 | -267.295 | 534.590 | |||
ras_confidence | random | 6 | 545.257 | 560.387 | -266.628 | 533.257 | 1.333 | 3 | 0.721 |
ras_willingness | null | 3 | 372.018 | 379.583 | -183.009 | 366.018 | |||
ras_willingness | random | 6 | 371.935 | 387.066 | -179.968 | 359.935 | 6.083 | 3 | 0.108 |
ras_goal | null | 3 | 454.878 | 462.444 | -224.439 | 448.878 | |||
ras_goal | random | 6 | 457.553 | 472.683 | -222.776 | 445.553 | 3.325 | 3 | 0.344 |
ras_reliance | null | 3 | 429.402 | 436.968 | -211.701 | 423.402 | |||
ras_reliance | random | 6 | 429.168 | 444.299 | -208.584 | 417.168 | 6.234 | 3 | 0.101 |
ras_domination | null | 3 | 405.284 | 412.849 | -199.642 | 399.284 | |||
ras_domination | random | 6 | 406.706 | 421.837 | -197.353 | 394.706 | 4.578 | 3 | 0.205 |
symptom | null | 3 | 638.022 | 645.587 | -316.011 | 632.022 | |||
symptom | random | 6 | 643.199 | 658.330 | -315.600 | 631.199 | 0.823 | 3 | 0.844 |
slof_work | null | 3 | 520.938 | 528.503 | -257.469 | 514.938 | |||
slof_work | random | 6 | 522.633 | 537.764 | -255.316 | 510.633 | 4.305 | 3 | 0.230 |
slof_relationship | null | 3 | 564.172 | 571.737 | -279.086 | 558.172 | |||
slof_relationship | random | 6 | 568.010 | 583.141 | -278.005 | 556.010 | 2.161 | 3 | 0.540 |
satisfaction | null | 3 | 598.206 | 605.772 | -296.103 | 592.206 | |||
satisfaction | random | 6 | 601.267 | 616.398 | -294.633 | 589.267 | 2.939 | 3 | 0.401 |
mhc_emotional | null | 3 | 477.459 | 485.024 | -235.729 | 471.459 | |||
mhc_emotional | random | 6 | 481.133 | 496.263 | -234.566 | 469.133 | 2.326 | 3 | 0.508 |
mhc_social | null | 3 | 553.119 | 560.684 | -273.559 | 547.119 | |||
mhc_social | random | 6 | 557.037 | 572.168 | -272.518 | 545.037 | 2.082 | 3 | 0.556 |
mhc_psychological | null | 3 | 580.357 | 587.923 | -287.179 | 574.357 | |||
mhc_psychological | random | 6 | 584.464 | 599.595 | -286.232 | 572.464 | 1.893 | 3 | 0.595 |
resilisnce | null | 3 | 507.267 | 514.833 | -250.634 | 501.267 | |||
resilisnce | random | 6 | 511.370 | 526.501 | -249.685 | 499.370 | 1.897 | 3 | 0.594 |
social_provision | null | 3 | 442.983 | 450.549 | -218.492 | 436.983 | |||
social_provision | random | 6 | 447.404 | 462.534 | -217.702 | 435.404 | 1.580 | 3 | 0.664 |
els_value_living | null | 3 | 440.710 | 448.275 | -217.355 | 434.710 | |||
els_value_living | random | 6 | 444.138 | 459.269 | -216.069 | 432.138 | 2.572 | 3 | 0.462 |
els_life_fulfill | null | 3 | 452.745 | 460.311 | -223.373 | 446.745 | |||
els_life_fulfill | random | 6 | 449.434 | 464.565 | -218.717 | 437.434 | 9.311 | 3 | 0.025 |
els | null | 3 | 549.392 | 556.957 | -271.696 | 543.392 | |||
els | random | 6 | 548.244 | 563.375 | -268.122 | 536.244 | 7.148 | 3 | 0.067 |
social_connect | null | 3 | 632.795 | 640.361 | -313.398 | 626.795 | |||
social_connect | random | 6 | 638.477 | 653.607 | -313.238 | 626.477 | 0.319 | 3 | 0.956 |
shs_agency | null | 3 | 523.679 | 531.244 | -258.839 | 517.679 | |||
shs_agency | random | 6 | 527.140 | 542.271 | -257.570 | 515.140 | 2.539 | 3 | 0.468 |
shs_pathway | null | 3 | 473.407 | 480.972 | -233.703 | 467.407 | |||
shs_pathway | random | 6 | 476.977 | 492.107 | -232.488 | 464.977 | 2.430 | 3 | 0.488 |
shs | null | 3 | 611.571 | 619.136 | -302.785 | 605.571 | |||
shs | random | 6 | 615.142 | 630.272 | -301.571 | 603.142 | 2.429 | 3 | 0.488 |
esteem | null | 3 | 304.505 | 312.071 | -149.253 | 298.505 | |||
esteem | random | 6 | 306.673 | 321.804 | -147.336 | 294.673 | 3.832 | 3 | 0.280 |
mlq_search | null | 3 | 480.091 | 487.656 | -237.045 | 474.091 | |||
mlq_search | random | 6 | 486.055 | 501.186 | -237.028 | 474.055 | 0.035 | 3 | 0.998 |
mlq_presence | null | 3 | 503.626 | 511.191 | -248.813 | 497.626 | |||
mlq_presence | random | 6 | 509.417 | 524.548 | -248.709 | 497.417 | 0.209 | 3 | 0.976 |
mlq | null | 3 | 603.539 | 611.104 | -298.770 | 597.539 | |||
mlq | random | 6 | 609.486 | 624.616 | -298.743 | 597.486 | 0.053 | 3 | 0.997 |
empower | null | 3 | 495.271 | 502.836 | -244.635 | 489.271 | |||
empower | random | 6 | 499.746 | 514.877 | -243.873 | 487.746 | 1.525 | 3 | 0.677 |
ismi_resistance | null | 3 | 433.710 | 441.275 | -213.855 | 427.710 | |||
ismi_resistance | random | 6 | 438.988 | 454.118 | -213.494 | 426.988 | 0.722 | 3 | 0.868 |
ismi_discrimation | null | 3 | 464.131 | 471.696 | -229.065 | 458.131 | |||
ismi_discrimation | random | 6 | 462.976 | 478.106 | -225.488 | 450.976 | 7.155 | 3 | 0.067 |
sss_affective | null | 3 | 482.547 | 490.113 | -238.274 | 476.547 | |||
sss_affective | random | 6 | 483.677 | 498.808 | -235.839 | 471.677 | 4.870 | 3 | 0.182 |
sss_behavior | null | 3 | 488.353 | 495.919 | -241.177 | 482.353 | |||
sss_behavior | random | 6 | 489.630 | 504.760 | -238.815 | 477.630 | 4.723 | 3 | 0.193 |
sss_cognitive | null | 3 | 489.962 | 497.527 | -241.981 | 483.962 | |||
sss_cognitive | random | 6 | 490.720 | 505.851 | -239.360 | 478.720 | 5.242 | 3 | 0.155 |
sss | null | 3 | 668.914 | 676.479 | -331.457 | 662.914 | |||
sss | random | 6 | 669.445 | 684.575 | -328.722 | 657.445 | 5.469 | 3 | 0.140 |
Post hoc analysis
Table
outcome | time | control | treatment | between | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
n | estimate | within es | n | estimate | within es | p | es | ||
recovery_stage_a | 1st | 29 | 3.21 ± 1.21 | 30 | 3.30 ± 1.21 | 0.768 | -0.091 | ||
recovery_stage_a | 2nd | 15 | 3.50 ± 1.20 | -0.283 | 18 | 3.57 ± 1.20 | -0.264 | 0.863 | -0.071 |
recovery_stage_b | 1st | 29 | 17.93 ± 2.73 | 30 | 18.03 ± 2.73 | 0.886 | -0.050 | ||
recovery_stage_b | 2nd | 15 | 17.78 ± 2.63 | 0.075 | 18 | 18.49 ± 2.65 | -0.224 | 0.442 | -0.349 |
ras_confidence | 1st | 29 | 29.76 ± 5.03 | 30 | 30.73 ± 5.03 | 0.460 | -0.346 | ||
ras_confidence | 2nd | 15 | 30.26 ± 4.44 | -0.178 | 18 | 31.29 ± 4.55 | -0.199 | 0.512 | -0.367 |
ras_willingness | 1st | 29 | 12.07 ± 2.02 | 30 | 12.20 ± 2.02 | 0.804 | -0.128 | ||
ras_willingness | 2nd | 15 | 11.19 ± 1.74 | 0.863 | 18 | 12.02 ± 1.79 | 0.172 | 0.178 | -0.820 |
ras_goal | 1st | 29 | 17.48 ± 3.10 | 30 | 17.40 ± 3.10 | 0.919 | 0.047 | ||
ras_goal | 2nd | 15 | 16.63 ± 2.76 | 0.478 | 18 | 18.02 ± 2.82 | -0.351 | 0.156 | -0.783 |
ras_reliance | 1st | 29 | 13.07 ± 2.84 | 30 | 13.53 ± 2.84 | 0.532 | -0.354 | ||
ras_reliance | 2nd | 15 | 13.30 ± 2.38 | -0.177 | 18 | 14.49 ± 2.47 | -0.732 | 0.163 | -0.908 |
ras_domination | 1st | 29 | 10.48 ± 2.22 | 30 | 9.50 ± 2.22 | 0.093 | 0.617 | ||
ras_domination | 2nd | 15 | 10.01 ± 2.11 | 0.296 | 18 | 10.31 ± 2.13 | -0.508 | 0.690 | -0.186 |
symptom | 1st | 29 | 29.66 ± 9.88 | 30 | 30.20 ± 9.88 | 0.833 | -0.154 | ||
symptom | 2nd | 15 | 29.02 ± 7.87 | 0.181 | 18 | 29.38 ± 8.25 | 0.232 | 0.897 | -0.103 |
slof_work | 1st | 29 | 22.41 ± 4.94 | 30 | 22.30 ± 4.94 | 0.930 | 0.058 | ||
slof_work | 2nd | 15 | 22.29 ± 4.02 | 0.064 | 18 | 20.98 ± 4.19 | 0.667 | 0.365 | 0.660 |
slof_relationship | 1st | 29 | 25.34 ± 5.98 | 30 | 26.00 ± 5.98 | 0.675 | -0.230 | ||
slof_relationship | 2nd | 15 | 24.15 ± 5.06 | 0.420 | 18 | 25.34 ± 5.23 | 0.232 | 0.509 | -0.418 |
satisfaction | 1st | 29 | 19.38 ± 6.73 | 30 | 22.23 ± 6.73 | 0.108 | -0.723 | ||
satisfaction | 2nd | 15 | 20.29 ± 6.03 | -0.230 | 18 | 21.35 ± 6.15 | 0.224 | 0.619 | -0.269 |
mhc_emotional | 1st | 29 | 10.97 ± 3.71 | 30 | 11.53 ± 3.71 | 0.558 | -0.315 | ||
mhc_emotional | 2nd | 15 | 11.69 ± 3.15 | -0.401 | 18 | 10.96 ± 3.25 | 0.318 | 0.517 | 0.404 |
mhc_social | 1st | 29 | 14.93 ± 5.32 | 30 | 14.23 ± 5.32 | 0.616 | 0.228 | ||
mhc_social | 2nd | 15 | 16.15 ± 4.74 | -0.399 | 18 | 14.08 ± 4.84 | 0.050 | 0.218 | 0.677 |
mhc_psychological | 1st | 29 | 21.48 ± 6.31 | 30 | 22.30 ± 6.31 | 0.620 | -0.242 | ||
mhc_psychological | 2nd | 15 | 22.49 ± 5.50 | -0.298 | 18 | 21.15 ± 5.65 | 0.341 | 0.492 | 0.398 |
resilisnce | 1st | 29 | 16.28 ± 4.36 | 30 | 16.77 ± 4.36 | 0.667 | -0.230 | ||
resilisnce | 2nd | 15 | 16.82 ± 3.71 | -0.255 | 18 | 17.48 ± 3.83 | -0.332 | 0.620 | -0.307 |
social_provision | 1st | 29 | 13.38 ± 2.96 | 30 | 14.00 ± 2.96 | 0.424 | -0.377 | ||
social_provision | 2nd | 15 | 12.95 ± 2.61 | 0.260 | 18 | 13.84 ± 2.67 | 0.099 | 0.339 | -0.538 |
els_value_living | 1st | 29 | 16.72 ± 2.95 | 30 | 17.63 ± 2.95 | 0.241 | -0.582 | ||
els_value_living | 2nd | 15 | 17.34 ± 2.57 | -0.396 | 18 | 17.79 ± 2.64 | -0.098 | 0.626 | -0.284 |
els_life_fulfill | 1st | 29 | 11.83 ± 3.02 | 30 | 13.83 ± 3.02 | 0.013 | -1.227 | ||
els_life_fulfill | 2nd | 15 | 12.95 ± 2.64 | -0.688 | 18 | 14.03 ± 2.71 | -0.122 | 0.251 | -0.661 |
els | 1st | 29 | 28.55 ± 5.31 | 30 | 31.47 ± 5.31 | 0.039 | -1.109 | ||
els | 2nd | 15 | 30.22 ± 4.53 | -0.636 | 18 | 31.82 ± 4.67 | -0.135 | 0.322 | -0.608 |
social_connect | 1st | 29 | 26.93 ± 9.24 | 30 | 26.57 ± 9.24 | 0.880 | 0.097 | ||
social_connect | 2nd | 15 | 27.59 ± 7.53 | -0.176 | 18 | 26.70 ± 7.85 | -0.035 | 0.740 | 0.239 |
shs_agency | 1st | 29 | 13.66 ± 4.65 | 30 | 15.07 ± 4.65 | 0.248 | -0.579 | ||
shs_agency | 2nd | 15 | 14.02 ± 4.03 | -0.149 | 18 | 15.68 ± 4.14 | -0.251 | 0.248 | -0.680 |
shs_pathway | 1st | 29 | 15.93 ± 3.69 | 30 | 17.20 ± 3.69 | 0.192 | -0.751 | ||
shs_pathway | 2nd | 15 | 16.53 ± 3.09 | -0.355 | 18 | 17.02 ± 3.20 | 0.108 | 0.659 | -0.288 |
shs | 1st | 29 | 29.59 ± 7.77 | 30 | 32.27 ± 7.77 | 0.190 | -0.738 | ||
shs | 2nd | 15 | 30.50 ± 6.55 | -0.251 | 18 | 32.72 ± 6.77 | -0.125 | 0.342 | -0.612 |
esteem | 1st | 29 | 12.55 ± 1.23 | 30 | 12.47 ± 1.23 | 0.791 | 0.071 | ||
esteem | 2nd | 15 | 13.18 ± 1.25 | -0.525 | 18 | 12.73 ± 1.24 | -0.221 | 0.306 | 0.376 |
mlq_search | 1st | 29 | 14.79 ± 3.47 | 30 | 14.87 ± 3.47 | 0.935 | -0.032 | ||
mlq_search | 2nd | 15 | 14.83 ± 3.23 | -0.014 | 18 | 14.74 ± 3.27 | 0.056 | 0.937 | 0.039 |
mlq_presence | 1st | 29 | 13.86 ± 3.99 | 30 | 13.40 ± 3.99 | 0.658 | 0.181 | ||
mlq_presence | 2nd | 15 | 13.79 ± 3.66 | 0.027 | 18 | 13.52 ± 3.72 | -0.048 | 0.835 | 0.106 |
mlq | 1st | 29 | 28.66 ± 6.86 | 30 | 28.27 ± 6.86 | 0.829 | 0.088 | ||
mlq | 2nd | 15 | 28.59 ± 6.31 | 0.015 | 18 | 28.25 ± 6.41 | 0.003 | 0.881 | 0.075 |
empower | 1st | 29 | 19.24 ± 4.08 | 30 | 19.97 ± 4.08 | 0.497 | -0.360 | ||
empower | 2nd | 15 | 19.39 ± 3.48 | -0.073 | 18 | 19.24 ± 3.59 | 0.360 | 0.906 | 0.073 |
ismi_resistance | 1st | 29 | 14.48 ± 2.61 | 30 | 14.77 ± 2.61 | 0.678 | -0.144 | ||
ismi_resistance | 2nd | 15 | 15.02 ± 2.52 | -0.275 | 18 | 14.67 ± 2.54 | 0.049 | 0.689 | 0.180 |
ismi_discrimation | 1st | 29 | 12.41 ± 3.31 | 30 | 10.43 ± 3.31 | 0.025 | 1.173 | ||
ismi_discrimation | 2nd | 15 | 11.44 ± 2.85 | 0.577 | 18 | 10.98 ± 2.93 | -0.322 | 0.648 | 0.274 |
sss_affective | 1st | 29 | 10.66 ± 3.90 | 30 | 9.33 ± 3.90 | 0.197 | 0.782 | ||
sss_affective | 2nd | 15 | 10.68 ± 3.22 | -0.013 | 18 | 8.51 ± 3.35 | 0.485 | 0.063 | 1.281 |
sss_behavior | 1st | 29 | 10.52 ± 3.93 | 30 | 8.87 ± 3.93 | 0.112 | 0.900 | ||
sss_behavior | 2nd | 15 | 10.23 ± 3.31 | 0.155 | 18 | 8.20 ± 3.42 | 0.361 | 0.088 | 1.107 |
sss_cognitive | 1st | 29 | 8.69 ± 4.10 | 30 | 7.97 ± 4.10 | 0.501 | 0.423 | ||
sss_cognitive | 2nd | 15 | 9.55 ± 3.36 | -0.501 | 18 | 7.18 ± 3.50 | 0.461 | 0.051 | 1.385 |
sss | 1st | 29 | 29.86 ± 11.08 | 30 | 26.17 ± 11.08 | 0.205 | 0.858 | ||
sss | 2nd | 15 | 30.52 ± 8.96 | -0.154 | 18 | 23.90 ± 9.36 | 0.527 | 0.041 | 1.538 |
Between group
recovery_stage_a
1st
t(83.52) = 0.30, p = 0.768, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-0.53 to 0.72)
2st
t(87.80) = 0.17, p = 0.863, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-0.76 to 0.91)
recovery_stage_b
1st
t(77.91) = 0.14, p = 0.886, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-1.31 to 1.52)
2st
t(87.85) = 0.77, p = 0.442, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (-1.12 to 2.54)
ras_confidence
1st
t(68.10) = 0.74, p = 0.460, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (-1.64 to 3.59)
2st
t(87.38) = 0.66, p = 0.512, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (-2.09 to 4.16)
ras_willingness
1st
t(65.85) = 0.25, p = 0.804, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-0.92 to 1.18)
2st
t(86.13) = 1.36, p = 0.178, Cohen d = -0.82, 95% CI (-0.39 to 2.06)
ras_goal
1st
t(68.74) = -0.10, p = 0.919, Cohen d = 0.05, 95% CI (-1.69 to 1.53)
2st
t(87.58) = 1.43, p = 0.156, Cohen d = -0.78, 95% CI (-0.54 to 3.33)
ras_reliance
1st
t(64.33) = 0.63, p = 0.532, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (-1.01 to 1.94)
2st
t(84.54) = 1.41, p = 0.163, Cohen d = -0.91, 95% CI (-0.49 to 2.88)
ras_domination
1st
t(76.19) = -1.70, p = 0.093, Cohen d = 0.62, 95% CI (-2.13 to 0.17)
2st
t(87.91) = 0.40, p = 0.690, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-1.17 to 1.77)
symptom
1st
t(61.22) = 0.21, p = 0.833, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-4.60 to 5.69)
2st
t(77.96) = 0.13, p = 0.897, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-5.23 to 5.96)
slof_work
1st
t(62.37) = -0.09, p = 0.930, Cohen d = 0.06, 95% CI (-2.69 to 2.46)
2st
t(81.05) = -0.91, p = 0.365, Cohen d = 0.66, 95% CI (-4.16 to 1.54)
slof_relationship
1st
t(64.81) = 0.42, p = 0.675, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-2.45 to 3.77)
2st
t(85.13) = 0.66, p = 0.509, Cohen d = -0.42, 95% CI (-2.38 to 4.76)
satisfaction
1st
t(69.33) = 1.63, p = 0.108, Cohen d = -0.72, 95% CI (-0.64 to 6.35)
2st
t(87.71) = 0.50, p = 0.619, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-3.17 to 5.29)
mhc_emotional
1st
t(65.14) = 0.59, p = 0.558, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-1.36 to 2.50)
2st
t(85.48) = -0.65, p = 0.517, Cohen d = 0.40, 95% CI (-2.95 to 1.50)
mhc_social
1st
t(68.85) = -0.50, p = 0.616, Cohen d = 0.23, 95% CI (-3.46 to 2.07)
2st
t(87.60) = -1.24, p = 0.218, Cohen d = 0.68, 95% CI (-5.40 to 1.25)
mhc_psychological
1st
t(67.13) = 0.50, p = 0.620, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-2.46 to 4.10)
2st
t(86.96) = -0.69, p = 0.492, Cohen d = 0.40, 95% CI (-5.22 to 2.53)
resilisnce
1st
t(65.30) = 0.43, p = 0.667, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-1.78 to 2.76)
2st
t(85.64) = 0.50, p = 0.620, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-1.96 to 3.27)
social_provision
1st
t(67.97) = 0.80, p = 0.424, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (-0.92 to 2.16)
2st
t(87.33) = 0.96, p = 0.339, Cohen d = -0.54, 95% CI (-0.95 to 2.72)
els_value_living
1st
t(66.85) = 1.18, p = 0.241, Cohen d = -0.58, 95% CI (-0.63 to 2.44)
2st
t(86.81) = 0.49, p = 0.626, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-1.36 to 2.25)
els_life_fulfill
1st
t(67.35) = 2.55, p = 0.013, Cohen d = -1.23, 95% CI (0.44 to 3.57)
2st
t(87.07) = 1.16, p = 0.251, Cohen d = -0.66, 95% CI (-0.78 to 2.94)
els
1st
t(65.51) = 2.11, p = 0.039, Cohen d = -1.11, 95% CI (0.16 to 5.67)
2st
t(85.84) = 1.00, p = 0.322, Cohen d = -0.61, 95% CI (-1.60 to 4.80)
social_connect
1st
t(62.50) = -0.15, p = 0.880, Cohen d = 0.10, 95% CI (-5.17 to 4.44)
2st
t(81.35) = -0.33, p = 0.740, Cohen d = 0.24, 95% CI (-6.24 to 4.45)
shs_agency
1st
t(66.66) = 1.17, p = 0.248, Cohen d = -0.58, 95% CI (-1.00 to 3.83)
2st
t(86.70) = 1.16, p = 0.248, Cohen d = -0.68, 95% CI (-1.18 to 4.50)
shs_pathway
1st
t(64.15) = 1.32, p = 0.192, Cohen d = -0.75, 95% CI (-0.65 to 3.19)
2st
t(84.30) = 0.44, p = 0.659, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-1.70 to 2.67)
shs
1st
t(64.47) = 1.32, p = 0.190, Cohen d = -0.74, 95% CI (-1.36 to 6.72)
2st
t(84.72) = 0.96, p = 0.342, Cohen d = -0.61, 95% CI (-2.40 to 6.84)
esteem
1st
t(87.79) = -0.27, p = 0.791, Cohen d = 0.07, 95% CI (-0.72 to 0.55)
2st
t(87.99) = -1.03, p = 0.306, Cohen d = 0.38, 95% CI (-1.31 to 0.42)
mlq_search
1st
t(73.73) = 0.08, p = 0.935, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-1.73 to 1.87)
2st
t(87.99) = -0.08, p = 0.937, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-2.35 to 2.17)
mlq_presence
1st
t(72.06) = -0.45, p = 0.658, Cohen d = 0.18, 95% CI (-2.53 to 1.61)
2st
t(87.99) = -0.21, p = 0.835, Cohen d = 0.11, 95% CI (-2.83 to 2.29)
mlq
1st
t(72.10) = -0.22, p = 0.829, Cohen d = 0.09, 95% CI (-3.95 to 3.18)
2st
t(87.99) = -0.15, p = 0.881, Cohen d = 0.08, 95% CI (-4.75 to 4.08)
empower
1st
t(65.43) = 0.68, p = 0.497, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (-1.40 to 2.85)
2st
t(85.76) = -0.12, p = 0.906, Cohen d = 0.07, 95% CI (-2.60 to 2.31)
ismi_resistance
1st
t(78.31) = 0.42, p = 0.678, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-1.07 to 1.64)
2st
t(87.84) = -0.40, p = 0.689, Cohen d = 0.18, 95% CI (-2.11 to 1.40)
ismi_discrimation
1st
t(66.09) = -2.30, p = 0.025, Cohen d = 1.17, 95% CI (-3.70 to -0.26)
2st
t(86.32) = -0.46, p = 0.648, Cohen d = 0.27, 95% CI (-2.47 to 1.54)
sss_affective
1st
t(63.37) = -1.30, p = 0.197, Cohen d = 0.78, 95% CI (-3.35 to 0.71)
2st
t(83.08) = -1.89, p = 0.063, Cohen d = 1.28, 95% CI (-4.45 to 0.12)
sss_behavior
1st
t(64.45) = -1.61, p = 0.112, Cohen d = 0.90, 95% CI (-3.70 to 0.39)
2st
t(84.70) = -1.73, p = 0.088, Cohen d = 1.11, 95% CI (-4.37 to 0.31)
sss_cognitive
1st
t(62.86) = -0.68, p = 0.501, Cohen d = 0.42, 95% CI (-2.86 to 1.41)
2st
t(82.12) = -1.98, p = 0.051, Cohen d = 1.38, 95% CI (-4.75 to 0.01)
sss
1st
t(62.04) = -1.28, p = 0.205, Cohen d = 0.86, 95% CI (-9.46 to 2.07)
2st
t(80.27) = -2.07, p = 0.041, Cohen d = 1.54, 95% CI (-12.99 to -0.27)
Within treatment group
recovery_stage_a
1st vs 2st
t(43.08) = 0.85, p = 0.803, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.37 to 0.92)
recovery_stage_b
1st vs 2st
t(39.84) = 0.71, p = 0.968, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.85 to 1.76)
ras_confidence
1st vs 2st
t(35.47) = 0.61, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-1.29 to 2.41)
ras_willingness
1st vs 2st
t(34.54) = -0.53, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.17, 95% CI (-0.85 to 0.50)
ras_goal
1st vs 2st
t(35.73) = 1.08, p = 0.571, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (-0.54 to 1.79)
ras_reliance
1st vs 2st
t(33.93) = 2.24, p = 0.064, Cohen d = -0.73, 95% CI (0.09 to 1.83)
ras_domination
1st vs 2st
t(39.01) = 1.60, p = 0.237, Cohen d = -0.51, 95% CI (-0.22 to 1.83)
symptom
1st vs 2st
t(32.68) = -0.70, p = 0.973, Cohen d = 0.23, 95% CI (-3.19 to 1.55)
slof_work
1st vs 2st
t(33.14) = -2.03, p = 0.102, Cohen d = 0.67, 95% CI (-2.64 to 0.00)
slof_relationship
1st vs 2st
t(34.12) = -0.71, p = 0.965, Cohen d = 0.23, 95% CI (-2.55 to 1.23)
satisfaction
1st vs 2st
t(35.97) = -0.69, p = 0.986, Cohen d = 0.22, 95% CI (-3.47 to 1.71)
mhc_emotional
1st vs 2st
t(34.25) = -0.97, p = 0.674, Cohen d = 0.32, 95% CI (-1.77 to 0.62)
mhc_social
1st vs 2st
t(35.77) = -0.16, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.05, 95% CI (-2.17 to 1.86)
mhc_psychological
1st vs 2st
t(35.06) = -1.05, p = 0.602, Cohen d = 0.34, 95% CI (-3.39 to 1.08)
resilisnce
1st vs 2st
t(34.32) = 1.02, p = 0.632, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (-0.71 to 2.13)
social_provision
1st vs 2st
t(35.41) = -0.30, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.10, 95% CI (-1.25 to 0.92)
els_value_living
1st vs 2st
t(34.95) = 0.30, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-0.88 to 1.19)
els_life_fulfill
1st vs 2st
t(35.16) = 0.37, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.88 to 1.28)
els
1st vs 2st
t(34.40) = 0.41, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-1.39 to 2.10)
social_connect
1st vs 2st
t(33.19) = 0.11, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-2.37 to 2.63)
shs_agency
1st vs 2st
t(34.87) = 0.77, p = 0.892, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-1.00 to 2.22)
shs_pathway
1st vs 2st
t(33.86) = -0.33, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.11, 95% CI (-1.31 to 0.94)
shs
1st vs 2st
t(33.99) = 0.38, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-1.96 to 2.87)
esteem
1st vs 2st
t(47.72) = 0.73, p = 0.939, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.46 to 0.99)
mlq_search
1st vs 2st
t(37.88) = -0.18, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.06, 95% CI (-1.64 to 1.38)
mlq_presence
1st vs 2st
t(37.14) = 0.15, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-1.54 to 1.79)
mlq
1st vs 2st
t(37.16) = -0.01, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-2.88 to 2.86)
empower
1st vs 2st
t(34.37) = -1.10, p = 0.556, Cohen d = 0.36, 95% CI (-2.06 to 0.61)
ismi_resistance
1st vs 2st
t(40.05) = -0.16, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.05, 95% CI (-1.36 to 1.16)
ismi_discrimation
1st vs 2st
t(34.64) = 0.99, p = 0.660, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.57 to 1.66)
sss_affective
1st vs 2st
t(33.54) = -1.48, p = 0.297, Cohen d = 0.49, 95% CI (-1.95 to 0.31)
sss_behavior
1st vs 2st
t(33.98) = -1.10, p = 0.556, Cohen d = 0.36, 95% CI (-1.88 to 0.56)
sss_cognitive
1st vs 2st
t(33.34) = -1.40, p = 0.339, Cohen d = 0.46, 95% CI (-1.93 to 0.35)
sss
1st vs 2st
t(33.01) = -1.60, p = 0.238, Cohen d = 0.53, 95% CI (-5.15 to 0.62)
Within control group
recovery_stage_a
1st vs 2st
t(45.91) = 0.84, p = 0.805, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.40 to 0.98)
recovery_stage_b
1st vs 2st
t(41.89) = -0.22, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.08, 95% CI (-1.57 to 1.26)
ras_confidence
1st vs 2st
t(36.46) = 0.50, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-1.52 to 2.52)
ras_willingness
1st vs 2st
t(35.32) = -2.43, p = 0.041, Cohen d = 0.86, 95% CI (-1.62 to -0.14)
ras_goal
1st vs 2st
t(36.79) = -1.36, p = 0.367, Cohen d = 0.48, 95% CI (-2.12 to 0.42)
ras_reliance
1st vs 2st
t(34.57) = 0.50, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.72 to 1.19)
ras_domination
1st vs 2st
t(40.86) = -0.86, p = 0.792, Cohen d = 0.30, 95% CI (-1.58 to 0.64)
symptom
1st vs 2st
t(33.04) = -0.50, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.18, 95% CI (-3.23 to 1.95)
slof_work
1st vs 2st
t(33.60) = -0.18, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.06, 95% CI (-1.57 to 1.32)
slof_relationship
1st vs 2st
t(34.80) = -1.18, p = 0.493, Cohen d = 0.42, 95% CI (-3.26 to 0.87)
satisfaction
1st vs 2st
t(37.09) = 0.65, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-1.91 to 3.72)
mhc_emotional
1st vs 2st
t(34.97) = 1.13, p = 0.536, Cohen d = -0.40, 95% CI (-0.58 to 2.02)
mhc_social
1st vs 2st
t(36.84) = 1.13, p = 0.531, Cohen d = -0.40, 95% CI (-0.97 to 3.41)
mhc_psychological
1st vs 2st
t(35.96) = 0.84, p = 0.813, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-1.42 to 3.44)
resilisnce
1st vs 2st
t(35.04) = 0.72, p = 0.957, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-1.00 to 2.09)
social_provision
1st vs 2st
t(36.39) = -0.74, p = 0.933, Cohen d = 0.26, 95% CI (-1.61 to 0.75)
els_value_living
1st vs 2st
t(35.82) = 1.12, p = 0.544, Cohen d = -0.40, 95% CI (-0.51 to 1.74)
els_life_fulfill
1st vs 2st
t(36.08) = 1.94, p = 0.120, Cohen d = -0.69, 95% CI (-0.05 to 2.30)
els
1st vs 2st
t(35.15) = 1.79, p = 0.166, Cohen d = -0.64, 95% CI (-0.23 to 3.57)
social_connect
1st vs 2st
t(33.66) = 0.49, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-2.07 to 3.39)
shs_agency
1st vs 2st
t(35.73) = 0.42, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-1.39 to 2.12)
shs_pathway
1st vs 2st
t(34.48) = 0.99, p = 0.656, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (-0.63 to 1.83)
shs
1st vs 2st
t(34.64) = 0.70, p = 0.973, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-1.72 to 3.54)
esteem
1st vs 2st
t(51.58) = 1.62, p = 0.223, Cohen d = -0.53, 95% CI (-0.15 to 1.40)
mlq_search
1st vs 2st
t(39.45) = 0.04, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-1.61 to 1.67)
mlq_presence
1st vs 2st
t(38.53) = -0.08, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.03, 95% CI (-1.88 to 1.74)
mlq
1st vs 2st
t(38.55) = -0.04, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-3.19 to 3.05)
empower
1st vs 2st
t(35.11) = 0.20, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-1.31 to 1.60)
ismi_resistance
1st vs 2st
t(42.15) = 0.80, p = 0.854, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.82 to 1.91)
ismi_discrimation
1st vs 2st
t(35.44) = -1.62, p = 0.227, Cohen d = 0.58, 95% CI (-2.19 to 0.24)
sss_affective
1st vs 2st
t(34.09) = 0.04, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-1.21 to 1.25)
sss_behavior
1st vs 2st
t(34.63) = -0.43, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.15, 95% CI (-1.61 to 1.05)
sss_cognitive
1st vs 2st
t(33.84) = 1.40, p = 0.344, Cohen d = -0.50, 95% CI (-0.39 to 2.10)
sss
1st vs 2st
t(33.44) = 0.43, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-2.49 to 3.81)
Plot
